Theaetetus:TFA: Noting that the Supreme Court had long ago ruled that stop-and-frisks were constitutionally permissible under certain conditions, the judge stressed that she was "not ordering an end to the practice of stop-and-frisk."

Sorry, Subby, but no. In the future, you might want to try reading your own article.

A quick composite from Google News puts the rest of the media with Subby. But you're right.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

This all seems rather straightforward to me. The police randomly stopping innocent people and frisking them, looking for contraband, is EXACTLY the thing this was supposed to stop.

"But the thing is, you don't have many suspects who are innocent of a crime. That's contradictory. If a person is innocent of a crime, then he is not a suspect." -Attorney General Ed Meesse. (October 14, 1985, US News And World Report)

LessO2:stuffy: They really hate it when you fake orgasm in the middle.

So does the TSA.

[media.mlive.com image 380x258]

Here's a fun idea:1. Go to fast food restaurant.2. Grab a bunch of single-serving mayo packages (but make sure the total volume is below 100ml or whatever the current TSA limitation is)3. Make a pinhole in each of them.4. Stuff them in your pants.5. Go to the airport and hope for a vigorous patdown.

Marcus Aurelius:Dr Dreidel: Marcus Aurelius: Dr Dreidel: Marcus Aurelius: NYC police will do whatever the hell they want until such time as their superior officers tell them to stop. And not a moment before.

You've never heard of Judge Shira Scheindlin, have you?

// PROTIP: Do NOT piss of Judge Shira Scheindlin

You mean the judge that ruled "Stop and Frisk" unconstitutional, only to lift the ban days later, due to the "burden" it would place on the poor little police officers?

Very harsh.

Pick another one, then.

I was referring more to the way she runs her courtroom - her reputation (which I know from general news readings and from a friend who argued cases in front of her) is that she tolerates no shiat and will make you hurt for futzing around with the law.

She may well be a very tough judge, but she hasn't altered stop and frisk in any way. If anything, her remedies will be pointed to as proof that the "problem is being addressed", when in fact her remedies will have no effect whatsoever.

I don't know...I like this remedy:

"Judge Scheindlin also ordered a number of other remedies, including a pilot program in which officers in at least five precincts across the city will wear body-worn cameras in an effort to record street encounters. "

Noting that the Supreme Court had long ago ruled that stop-and-frisks were constitutionally permissible under certain conditions, the judge stressed that she was "not ordering an end to the practice of stop-and-frisk. The purpose of the remedies addressed in this opinion is to ensure that the practice is carried out in a manner that protects the rights and liberties of all New Yorkers, while still providing much needed police protection."

Teiritzamna:RightWingWacko: In other words... it's ok to violate a persons rights as long as you violate EVERYONES's rights equally!

More that under present precedent, you do not have a right to not be stopped and frisked by a police officer if the following applies:

1) reasonable suspicion that would justify a stop based on "specific and articulable facts";

and

2) a reasonable and articulable suspicion that the person detained may be "armed and dangerous."

of course, where the heck articulable reasonable suspicion is in the 4th amendment i dont know . . . .

That's a wildly over-optimistic interpretation of the current precedent... do you really think that, in a program where 88 percent of people arent cited or arrested for anything, that cops had a reasonable and articulable suspicion that would justify a stop, let alone a reasonable and articulable suspicion that the person detained may be armed?

The reality is that the program would end if white people and people of all ages who vote in greater numbers were subject to this same unreasonable idiocy, NYC will never have a racially unbiased stop and frisk program because when you start stopping and frisking I-bankers, lawyers, and business owners, the obviously unlawful program converts from a great tool for oppression into an all-out lawsuit magnet.

firefly212:That's a wildly over-optimistic interpretation of the current precedent... do you really think that, in a program where 88 percent of people arent cited or arrested for anything, that cops had a reasonable and articulable suspicion that would justify a stop, let alone a reasonable and articulable suspicion that the person detained may be armed?

Actually i am just articulating the standard. I personally think reasonable suspicion for a stop is one of the more ridiculous things to flow from the Court, especially as it is a lower standard than probable cause, which was defined by the court as a reasonable belief that certain facts were probably true. When you have a test so mushy that it is weaker than, "i have a solid belief that these facts are true" its not a surprise that what you have created is a blank check to frisk "undesirables."

/still get rage shakes remembering my reading from Crim Pro and watching "of course a cop can frisk a guy if he is terrified that he might get shot" turn into "welp, you can stop and feel up someone pretty much whenever you want."

Marcus Aurelius:She may well be a very tough judge, but she hasn't altered stop and frisk in any way. If anything, her remedies will be pointed to as proof that the "problem is being addressed", when in fact her remedies will have no effect whatsoever.

She even explicitly stated that she is not ending stop and frisk. This basically was a 'feel up more white people so you don't look so racist' ruling.

firefly212:do you really think that, in a program where 88 percent of people arent cited or arrested for anything,

A 12% probability that the person has something illegal on them makes a fishing expedition, not 'reasonable suspicion based up on specific and clearly articulable facts' that the person is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a crime.

firefly212:The reality is that the program would end if white people and people of all ages who vote in greater numbers were subject to this same unreasonable idiocy,

Excellent. Finally a judge is putting a stop to these baseless "stop and frisk you because I feel like it" incidents. Terry Stops are enough of a gray area. But we need to put an end to discarding any pretense of probable cause or reasonable suspicion.

In a ruling released Monday morning, three months after hearing nine weeks of testimony in a class-action lawsuit challenging the policy, Manhattan federal court judge Shira Scheindlin found that "the city acted with deliberate indifference toward the NYPD's practice of making unconstitutional stops and conducting unconstitutional frisks."

OMG, all those Tea Party activists were RIGHT! Why didn't we listen to them before it was too late? We're living under Shira Law now! noooooooo

Yes, it looks as if they may have instructed highway patrol officers to do cavity searches of people being detained in traffic stops. Two separate incidents from different parts of the state with the same MO: traffic stop, suspicion alleged, female officer summoned, roadside UFIA.

Theaetetus:firefly212: The ruling says it's unconstitutional, but can continue

The ruling says it's constitutional due to the racial profiling. Stop and frisk itself can continue, provided they address the race issue.

Which is consistent with Terry v. Ohio the issue was not that police were using Terry stops, it was the basis on which they wer choosing to stop people. The Constitution requires that, at a minimum the officer have a "reasonable Suspicion" which is defined as "an objectively justifiable suspicion that is based on specific facts or circumstances and that justifies stopping and sometimes searching (as by frisking) a person thought to be involved in criminal activity " and the Court has further clarified: "A police officer stopping a person must be able to point to specific facts or circumstances even though the level of suspicion need not rise to that of the belief that is supported by probable cause. A reasonable suspicion is more than a hunch. "

The problem with what the NYPD has been doing is that they have been, by their own admission, conducting blanket Terry stops of anyone in a particular neighborhoip who is walking, or in the lobby of a building "without apparent purpose" etc, this is not okay under the Terry standard and this what they have to stop doing

remus:In before the apologists arrive, already saw some on other sites saying that they were ok with this policy because it stopped crime. Unbelievable that some people would accept this for any reason.

Do you go through the scanner or allow someone in a TSA uniform to touch you at the airport?

Dimensio:Is the city now expected to argue that "being brown" constitutes "good reason"?

They already tried that argument. The police tried to explain why 88% of the stops were "brown people" with the excuse that the overwhelming majority of crime is committed by brown people. The judge rightfully called them on their bullshiat.

I'm glad this violation of the Constitution has finally been stopped, though it took far too long. Next up, the Patriot Act.

remus:In before the apologists arrive, already saw some on other sites saying that they were ok with this policy because it stopped crime. Unbelievable that some people would accept this for any reason.

scanman61:"Judge Scheindlin also ordered a number of other remedies, including a pilot program in which officers in at least five precincts across the city will wear body-worn cameras in an effort to record street encounters. "

Mandatory body cameras on police...about farking time!

It doesn't say how many of them will be wearing the cameras. If it's less than 10%, it won't be long before they start calling them the "Mayberry RFD patrols". The NYPD will break out an endless loop of cops helping old ladies across the street and stopping traffic for kittens.

d23:remus: In before the apologists arrive, already saw some on other sites saying that they were ok with this policy because it stopped crime. Unbelievable that some people would accept this for any reason.

The people that are "for" this are not the people being targeted by the NYPD. The ruling says that if the racial bias is removed from the day-to-day implementation of the policy it can be continued.

Watch the same people biatch and moan (as they do with the TSA) if/when that happens.

They are already doing that in this thread, "boo hoo they're starting to search white people".

Most people haven't read the Terry ruling and the police always misrepresent it. What the courts said in the ruling is the police must have a compelling reason to search you and your car without a warrant. The police lie and say the ruling gives them the authority to search as they please.

The compelling reason the ruling cites is, "Where a reasonably prudent officer is warranted in the circumstances of a given case in believing that his safety or that of others is endangered, he may make a reasonable search for weapons of the person believed by him to be armed and dangerous."

Furthermore, "The reasonableness of any particular search and seizure must be assessed in light of the particular circumstances against the standard of whether a man of reasonable caution is warranted in believing that the action taken was appropriate."

In other words, there has to be a damn good reason to search without a warrant. Your car is fits the description of a car used for a drive by shooting that just occurred a mile from, for instance. Not, you were going 10MPH over the speed limit and I don't like your looks.